this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2026
488 points (98.0% liked)

politics

31806 readers
3315 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The victories were a clear rebuke of Trump’s politics, but also a referendum on the Democratic party’s own centrism that is complicit in the violence of masked men hunting immigrants, the funding of a genocide and the denial of healthcare to citizens of the world’s wealthiest country.

…Hakeem Jeffries, who is running for speaker of the House, will not commit to holding a vote on abolishing ICE. He opposes Medicare for All. He has said he will not hold Trump accountable for the human rights violations committed, portraying it as a question of “getting even” rather than achieving justice where it was denied. Chuck Schumer, who holds similar positions, has an extraordinarily low approval rating – yet plans to run for majority leader in the Senate. Electeds are questioning whether these men should hold these roles.

But the dissent must also come from us, as it has been. We need to demand an end to the fast violence of guns on our streets trained on our neighbors, bombs dropped from the sky and the slow violence of people dying because their healthcare was denied or their food stamps were cut.

We need to organize, and mobilize, to demand the multi-racial democracy we were promised – not a playground for the rich to get richer on the time and labor and lives of the poor.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DragonAce@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

Fuck Jeffries and Schumer, both of those fuckers are selfish assholes who just want to go back to the status quo so they can keep collecting their bribes in peace.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 47 minutes ago

When the overton window is skewed so far to the right like it is in the USA, what passes for centerism is still way off towards the right wing.

[–] Varpeggio@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

It did in Kansas, at least W/R/T the senate seat.

That being said, Hamilton doesn’t take AIPAC money and is anti-Schumer.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 1 points 1 hour ago

Of course not. Centrists kept telling people to not even vote.

[–] VinegarChunks@lemmus.org 2 points 1 hour ago

South Carolina won a D senate seat with a moderate

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 15 points 13 hours ago (1 children)
[–] nerdo@lemmy.zip 7 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

I think AIPAC and Israel are in their death throes

[–] bantering@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

It’s beautiful to see people finally waking up to their terroristic state.

Still a long way to go, but we are on the right path and it is righteous.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago

Not until they're out of funds.

[–] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 12 hours ago (1 children)
[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 hours ago

It did for Bill Clinton and they've been chasing that high for decades. Both bribes and Blue No Matter Who votes! 🤤

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 64 points 1 day ago (23 children)

Wait, does centrism ever win an election? Thinking back on both Republican and Democrat victories, it seems catering to the moderates of the other side to try and win them over never works.

It helped having a President who pissed everyone off though. Maybe with some work we can turn some of the centric Republicans to the left a bit, if we can show having power to the left means results. It isn't over, it hasn't even started yet.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 43 minutes ago

Wait, does centrism ever win an election?

It can in countries with an actual political spectrum and multiple parties spread across all points of that spectrum.

Less so in a country with only a binary choice like the USA has.

[–] Malica@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago

It doesn't work but they pretend it does because that way the donors get what they want and they get to "appear" to be trying, when in fact they're not. Covert Republicans and controlled opposition.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 50 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Wait, does centrism ever win an election?

You could argue this happened in 1992, and it would also be the last time centrism won an election. In 1992, Democrats had basically given up on the political hegemony that had defined them since WW2, and accepted the political hegemony of neoliberalism and Ronald Reagan. And they won on it. It won an election for them.

And since that time, Democrats have been convinced that they had to run to the center to get "moderate" voters, when in reality, "centrist"/"moderate" voters never actually manifested. It was a middling black-swan event, but what it did, is it gave corporate democrats a hall pass to permanently assume a thing about a thing that didnʻt exist or even actually happen.

The very principal of a left versus right spectrum, represented as a normal distribution, is a construct of liberalism^1^. Its a way to represent an assumption about how voters think and behave and are distributed. And you are under no obligation to accept this construction. And when this construction has to get pushed up against reality; real actual voters with real actual data, it falls apart^2^. And this is because voters are messy, complicated, contradictory things. And this should be an obvious explanation because actual voters are actual people, and actual people are messy, complicated, contradictory things. A scientific materialist should faithfully reconstruct the models, push the models against the data, and reject the models which donʻt match the data. Any rational person who has borne witness to the previous decades of politics should recognize how the liberal construction of voters behave doesnʻt map to the data. It canʻt predict outcomes. There are ways of analyzing politics which do predict future states. But if you narrow your view to what assumptions liberalism demands you make, youʻll struggle to predict future state of politics, which is the ultimate test of any theory. If

You are not obligated to accept the assumptions of liberalism. And if the assumptions of liberalism dont predict beyond the data theyʻre trained on, you should reject those assumptions. You are not immediately obligated to accept other assumptions. In science, we reject theories all the time when the evidence tells us to, and sometimes that leaves us with an uncomfortable feeling of uncertainty about how that system works. But it is better to be uncertain than it is to be comfortably wrong.

1: I consider liberalism to be the parent philosophy of democratic liberalism, republican conservatism, neoliberalism, neoconservatism; all of these extension find their roots in liberalism. Two philosophies not finding their roots here are social democracy (roots in marxism), and american fascism (roots in nazism/ european fascism).

2: I can go into explaining this, but I want to keep the argument brief. The case involves multivariate analysis and stats.

[–] mad_lentil@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 minutes ago

S+ tier comment, in the words of my generation. I love it.

I realise why we've got so invested in certain framings of reality using different political lenses (conflict theory, my beloved) because it touches on literally every parts of our lives and our value systems.

But at the end of the day, it's just a system used to organise us. I've seen similar tiffs arise at work over co-op versus owned, kanban versus sprints, matrix versus pyramid, and it's the same kind of shit except for the scale: who benefits, who makes decisions, why do we do it. Real questions with concrete answers that we can experiment on and change our approaches—and keep changing them.

But just like with trying out workplace arrangements that would benefit the vast majority, there are people invested in the status quo for a variety of good and bad reasons.

We should be able to talk plainly and soberly about these things as long as we all agree that human flourishing is the ultimate goal of any system we build or reproduce.

[–] NoTagBacks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 12 hours ago

Yeah, this is it. I appreciate the uncertain language of whether or not centrism "won" the 1992 election as well. It really is just an oversimplification where everyone but the establishment loses. The results from the last decade or so should be data enough to show that the way things are measured is fundamentally broken. While the whole left/right liberal/conservative paradigm is still the pervading "default" mode of thinking in the meta of American Politics, but it's increasingly coming under more scrutiny, especially after this last election once again failed to produce predictions that had the results within their parameters. I think a good portion of that lies in this weird idea that many dem and even academic circles are getting recently that "populism is a right-wing thing", which is once again predicated on the paradigm of left/right liberal/conservative. Almost like people really aren't that simple or something...

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] TotalSonic@lemmy.world 26 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

it kind of varied with region. Here in Texas both Talarico & Hinajosa are certainly more centrist in their approaches, and I don't think open progressives could have won a Statewide elections here like they did.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 12 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Completely agree, but for anyone not in Texas you need to understand that for a lot of people here "average centrist" is basically "militant communist terrorism".

In retrospect (and purely, only in retrospect), if we had packed the ballots with progressives they'd have gotten in anyway. I feel strongly that the election was decided here in Texas by low information voters doing the opposite of what they did last time because that's all they could think to do. I really don't think it went any deeper than that. The fascists knew that about their base, that's why all their ads have always been fear based. This time, real world fear was flying in the face of the manufactured fear, and it became impossible to ignore any longer. Many of these people have never left the state. They've only seen six dollar diesel in memes about California. When they saw that at home it was like seeing a tiger in their kitchen. They ran for the voting booths the same way they'd run for the shotgun.

Under no circumstances would I have ever placed a bet on a statewide blue sweep! I remember Anne Richards, I feel like she'd be happy about this outcome.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I feel strongly that the election was decided here in Texas by low information voters doing the opposite of what they did last time because that's all they could think to do.

That's giving low-information voters too little credit. While I don't know what exactly is going on in their heads, we do have a consistent pattern of Republicans voting for progressives (see: Obama in 2008*) so clearly there's some amount of thought going on here. The complaints about Harris are I think also informative; some Republicans vote blue when the blue candidate seems like they'll do stuff for them and isn't an empty suit.

*Obama wasn't a progressive, but he ran like one.

[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 6 points 13 hours ago

I think you’re on to something. The working class are so desperate for working class policies that they run towards anyone who can convince them that’s them, then when those lies are revealed, they run in the opposite direction.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

I mean fucking duh. And no matter how desperately Matt Iglesias or Rahm Immanuel try and twist this, theyʻll never win another election for Democrats.

[–] itsAsin@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

on Bill Maher show last night (a hate watch for me) they were going on about how the midterm results were specifically NOT in support of the DSA and "extreme leftist" policy and i am like, bitch, the fact that you feel the need to deny it at all is the massive win here. 🙄

[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 10 points 1 day ago

This vote was against Jeffries and Schumer.

load more comments
view more: next ›